Examination of the jurisprudential justification for pardon and intercession in limiting offenses

Subject Areas : فقه و مبانی حقوق

seyedmorteza aghaei ¹ , reza daneshvarsani ² , davoud dadashnejad ³

1 - Department of theology - jurisprudence and the foundations of law at Damghan Azad University
2 - Member of faculty member of Razavi Islamic University
3 - Faculty member of Islamic jurisprudence and Islamic law faculty of Islamic Azad University, Damghan

Received: 2019-07-22 Accepted : 2018-10-08 Published : 2018-09-23

Keywords: punishment, reprimands, Intercession, Remission,

Abstract :

Amnesty and intercession are two judicial remedies that if a judge evaluates the usefulness of nonenforcement, the judge can apply them to non enforcement. In this approach, the punitive response is an ijtihad, in which the judge discovers and adopts the most effective measures to correct and treat the offenders in order to obtain a variety of materials.The ruler does not enforce some penalties and substitutes for some punishments by applying secondary sentences and the element of expediency in cases of conflict between the law's provisions and the likelihood of the circumstances affecting that sentence. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the punishments of time, place, and persons in the execution of penalties, especially in the form of minor offenses, which can also be achieved through measures such as amnesty and intercession. Therefore, the authors of this article have descriptively and analytically examined the jurisprudential arguments of pardon and intercession and its scope.